THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,                                               PATIALA.

       Complaint No.CC/10/225 of 29.3.2010

       Decided on            5.8.2010

Saman Marwari S/o Sh.N.K.Marwari, resident of House No.2076/2,Sector 45-C, Chandigarh-160047.

                                                        ….Complainant.

                                 Versus

Thapar University, Patiala through its Chairman.

….Opposite party.

                                  Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                  Consumer Protection Act.1986

                                  QUORUM    

                                   Sh. Inderjit Singh, President

                                  Sh. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                   Smt Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant    : Sh.Punit Gupta Advocates

For the opposite party : Sh.V.M. Gupta Advocate

                                      ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant, Saman Marwari has brought this consumer complaint under   Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended up to date(herein after referred to as the act),against the opposite party , fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint .

2                                    As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complaint is like this:-

That the complainant had appeared in All India Engineering Entrance Examination-2009 conducted by  Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi vide Roll No.21419383 on 26.04.2009 and secured well. That after succeeding in the  entrance test the complainant had applied for the admission in B.E.(Computers) course for the year 2009-2010 in the University of opposite party in view of the deemed University status by depositing  the requisite fee of Rs.10,000/- through State Bank Transfer on 18.6.2009. That on 26.06.2009 the opposite party University has allotted the seat in B.E. Computers to the complainant on the basis of his performance in All India Engineering Entrance Examination, conducted by C.B.S.E, New Delhi. The opposite party directed the complainant to deposit the fee. Upon  this the complainant has deposited the fee of Rs. 79,225/- in cash through State Bank of Patiala, Thapar Universilty Branch ,   on 2.7.2009. That on 26.7.2009, the complainant was shocked after reading the news paper item published in Danik Bhaskar dated 26.7.2009 that the status of deemed university of the opposite party is going to de-recognize. Upon this , the complainant had no other option except to take admission in some other  college because no student  will like to play with his career and future by joining such university which is going to be de-recognize by the Government. The complainant has  applied for admission in the opposite party university because of its deemed university status onlyl. So on 26.7.2009,the complainant had applied for refund of total fee with the opposite party , but  the opposite has refunded Rs.5500/- only instead of Rs.89,225/-. That the complainant has not taken any lecture or attended a single day of his course in the  university of the opposite party and has not used an y infrastructure of the opposite party.  That in view of the facts, the opposite parties are liable to refund the fee for a sum of Rs. 83,725/-(Rs.89,2256- Rs.55/-) to the complainant alongwith  interest @ 18% P.A. That the opposite parties are practicing malafied using unfair. That the opposite parties are practicing malafied using unfair trade practice and it proves deficiency in se4rvice and their misconduct the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony , harassment, physical pain and financial burden and  therefore entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3.                                           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted  that the complainant was not a student of the opposite party on the date of filing of the complaint as such the relationship of consumer and service provider even, if any, proved came to an end on the date the complainant  withdrew from  Thapar University i.e 11.8.2009. It is correct that the complainant appeared in AIEEE 2009 but it is wrong that he secured well as alleged. His rank was 1347889. It is wrong that the complainant applied for the admission to B.E . Computers as claimed. But he gave first  preference to computer engineering as per his application form. It is correct that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party. That the complainant  was offered seat in B.E. Computers on the basis of the category and thle merit in the said category.  It is also correct that the complainant deposited Rs.79,225/- through State Bank of Patiala with Thapar University Patiala on 2.7.2009. It is wrong that the complainant was  shocked after reading the news item in the Dainik Bhaskar as alleged  There was no proposal  either by the State Government, Central Government or  by University  Grant Commission  to de-recognize  the Thapar University, Patiala. That  false news in the Danik Bhaskar alleged by the complainant are mischievous act of some reporter which has no basis.  The newspaper cuttings are not admitted  to be correct. Let the complainant produce any letter/notification to that effect. Newspaper item cannot be taken as evidence because  the same is without any basis. It is all lame excuse to withdraw from Thapar University, Patiala after the expiry of the last date of withdrawal of seat because the complainant might  have got admission in his home town at Chandigarh. The allegations of the complainant are his fanciful apprehension and have got no basis at all . Had the complainant been panicky about de-recognition of the Thapar University, the complainant would have approached the competent authority of the Thapar University, Patiala to enquire about the status. The complainant remained on the rolls of the Thapar University from 2.7.2009 when he got himself registered. It is wrong that he did not attend the class, however  even if he did not attend the class, it is not the fault of the Thapar University, Patiala. It may be that the complainant remained absent from the classes  and was afraid of falling short of lectures. It is wrong that the infrastructure was not used by the complainant.. The complainant was refunded whatever was due as per the law and directions of the  UGC and AICTE. The request for the refund was received from the complainant on 11.8.2009 much after the last date of counseling i.e. 3.8.2009 and seat vacated by the complainant remained unfilled in  whole of the semester for which the complainant deposited  the fees. Had the complainant withdrew from the admission before 3.8.2009, the said seat would have been offered to someone else. In all sixty four seats remained vacant in the Thapar University, Patiala even  after 3.8.2009. The complainant has withheld material evidence and has stated wrong facts in the complaint and has tried to create false evidence. It is wrong that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- or any other amount. It is wrong that the opposite parties are practicing malafide or are using unfair trade practice or there is any deficiency in service. It is wrong that there is any misconduct on the part of the opposite parties. It is wrong that the complainant has suffered any mental pain, agony , harassment, physical pain or financial burden as alleged  . All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complainant be dismissed.

4.                                             The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record.

5.                                             The  parties has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                                             The case of the complainant is that he  took admission in B.E computer in the University of the opposite party on 26.6.2009 after paying Rs.89,225/- . That on 26.7.2009 the complainant  applied for refund  of  total fee after reading in the news paper that the University of opposite party is going to   be  de-recognized. The  copy of  application for refund of fee is attached as Ex.C7. The  last date of the counseling  was 3.8.2009. As the complainant  applied for refund of fee on 26.7.2009, while counseling  was still given on, so he is entitled to refund  of  total fee after deducting Rs.1000/- only.

7.                                             The case  of the opposite party is that the complainant applied  for refund of fee on 11.8.2009, whil the last date of counseling was 3.8.2009. So the complainant is not entitled for any refund  except  already made to him. The averments of opposite party is that their seat remained vacant throughout semester.

8.                                             In view of the above discussion we hold that the complainant vacated the seat and applied for  refund of fee on 26.7.2009, while the counsel ling was still going on. The last date of counseling  was 3.8.2009. Where as opposite party has  totally failed to prove his case. The total fee of the compensation is   to be refunded after deducting Rs 1000/- only.

9.                                             In the result we allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite party to refund the amount  of Rs.46375/-(89225/- 1000/- Plus 5500/- already refunded i.e 82,725/-)  within a period of one month along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposited  till payment with another sum of Rs.1100/-  as compensation inclusive of costs for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                             File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated: 5-08-2010

                                      Member     President Member